Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Season 7 Episode 21
Aired on August 16, 2020
Main segment: Jury duty and jury selection in the United States
Other segments: Marjorie Taylor Greene and QAnon
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
John: Hi there! Welcome to the show, still taking place in this blank void that has all the design aesthetics of heaven with all the depressing vibes of hell. It’s been a busy week, from Trump admitting to sabotaging the u.s. Postal service to make mail-in voting more difficult to Herman Cain somehow tweeting from the dead.
But the big news was Kamala Harris being announced as Biden’s running mate, a decision that sent conservatives scrambling for attack strategies, from claiming it’s an extreme, far-left ticket — which it absolutely isn’t — to a baseless accusation that she may not meet the citizenship requirements to hold the office, despite being very much born in the United States. It’s a depressing resurgence of birtherism, so of course Trump jumped all over it.
[Donald Trump] I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements and, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer. I have no idea if that’s right.
John: Oh, I’ll tell you if it’s right. It fucking isn’t. It’s amazing how slow Trump is to respond to many things, like, I dunno, public health crises, yet when it comes to amplifying racist conspiracy theories suddenly he’s the fucking flash on cocaine.
And sadly, it wasn’t even the only conspiracy theory that stained this week, as Tuesday saw a stunning result in a congressional primary.
[CNN] Businesswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is now the heavy favorite to win a seat representing a deeply conservative district in northwest Georgia. Greene has repeatedly praised the QAnon theory.
[Marjorie Taylor Greene] Q is a patriot. We know that for sure. But we do not know who q is. People believe that q is someone very close to president Trump.
John: Oh, great. Just when you thought 2020 couldn’t get any worse, what with the pandemic and murder hornets, now someone who’s openly endorsed a conspiracy theory has won a congressional primary. And that is alarming. When your drunk aunt is four wine and tonics deep, thrashing her pashmina around the thanksgiving table screaming “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams,” you’re definitely not thinking, “I wish the fate of the stimulus package could be in her hands.”
And if you’re lucky enough to not know what QAnon is and you’re thinking, “let me Google that” — please don’t. Because much like “Joe Rogan net worth,” or “John Oliver hentai,” googling QAnon is going to get you some very upsetting results. The conspiracy involves a range of batshit theories, but very basically, many QAnon supporters believe in “a global conspiracy involving a ring of satan-worshiping, child-molesting criminals led by prominent democrats” that includes everyone from Hillary Clinton to tom hanks to a Mexican cement company. They also believe information about it is being leaked via cryptic posts on the internet by someone with very high “q”-level security clearance, which sounds just as made up as it is, and apparently, the main person who’s working to root out the satanist pedophiles is Donald Trump, which is a little weird, because… Y’know. The point is, no matter how much the theory evolves, one thing’s always the same:
[P.J. Tobia, PBS News Hour, 2018] The bottom line about this conspiracy theory is that it’s a conspiracy to protect Trump. So things that, to the rest of us, might seem like bad news for Trump, like the Mueller investigation, they look at as actually part of Trump’s grand strategy. You see, he was colluding with Ru — he wanted to make it look like he was colluding with Russia on purpose so that Robert Mueller would be hired and he could team up with Trump, Mueller and Trump teaming up together to investigate the Clintons and the rest of the deep state and their global pedophile sex ring.
[Judy Woodruff] So that is — that takes a lot of… Thinking to get that far.
John: Yeah, it does. And my favorite part of that is watching Judy Woodruff struggle to find a word to describe it that she can say on PBS. Because “that takes a lot of thinking” is basically public television for “that’s the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard.”
Now, to give you a taste of how intricately stupid this is, this flow chart purports to explain how Q’s theories relate to everything else, connecting q to everything from Halliburton to “Jesuit revenge” to simply “wifi, 1998.” Although I do think we can all agree that princess Diana is indeed the connective tissue between Jonbenet Ramsey and Lockheed Martin. And there’s so much more, like the QAnon slogan, “where we go one, we go all,” helpfully abbreviated as wwg1wga in case you’re trying to make a horrible, horrible mistake. Also there are QAnon songs, and brace yourself — everything you’re about to see is total horseshit.
♪ Here’s a great man that drives them all insane ♪
♪ and he’s gonna make America great again ♪
♪ I really want to introduce you to my friend Q ♪
♪ and the people of the great awakening ♪
♪ they’ll try to keep everyone in the dark ♪
♪ with the use of Hollywood, Susan, Jack, and Mark ♪
♪ to hide the fact that they’re all evil and sick ♪
♪ child-trafficking pedophile satanists ♪
John: Bars. Not quite as catchy as Cardi B’s “my head game is fire, punani dasani, it’s goin’ in dry and it’s comin’ out soggy,” but both “wap” and “the QAnon song” leave me feeling both stunned and wondering, who the fuck is that white lady and why is she there?
Also, to the commenter who wrote on the QAnon video, “wow! I don’t care for hip-hop but I love this!” I’ve got some good news, if you like that video, you still don’t like hip-hop.
And Greene boosting QAnon should be disqualifying in itself — conspiracy theories can be incredibly dangerous. But it’s also far from the only odious thing she’s ever said.
[CNN Live] Greene also won despite a history of racist and incendiary remarks against Muslims.
[Marjorie Taylor Greene] We have an Islamic invasion into our government offices.
[CNN Live] About democrats.
[Marjorie Taylor Greene] They’re trying to keep the black people in a modern-day form of slavery. It’s a slavery system to keep their vote.
[CNN Live] About blacks and confederate statues.
[Marjorie Taylor Greene] If I were black people today and I walked by one of those statues, I would be so proud, because I’d say, “look how far I have come in this country.”
John: Okay, first of all, if you were “black people today”? So, not just one black person, but “all” black people? Also, why would anyone need you to engage in this hypothetical? You’re not “black people” — though I wouldn’t be surprised to find out you temporarily were on a Halloween or two.
Now, I should say that, before Greene’s election, top republicans tried to distance themselves from her, with house minority leader Kevin McCarthy’s spokesperson calling her remarks “appalling.” But since her victory, that tone has shifted.
[CNN Live] President Donald Trump was quick to herald her victory, saying in a tweet Wednesday morning that she’s a future republican star and a real winner. A couple hours later, a McCarthy spokesperson said, “we look forward to Greene and other republicans winning in November.”
John: Okay, I get that you should be welcoming to your new colleagues. But maybe don’t be “that” welcoming when they’ve basically accused your other co-workers of being satanic child sex ring leaders. Save that for happy hour. That’s good gossip. But this should be worrying. It’s bad enough to encounter these conspiracy theories online; it is worse to potentially be encountering them in the halls of congress. And I would love to be shocked that republican leadership is embracing an online troll with a history of racist comments, but the truth is, they’ve been doing that for years now. Because you can only see Greene as a disturbing anomaly if you ignore the basic fact that, when it comes to the modern republican party, where they go one, they go all. And now this:
Announcer: And now, Larry King, master salesman.
[Larry King] As you all know, I would rarely become associated with any product, as I have built a lifetime career on being an independent investigative news anchor.
[Larry King] I have never in 60 years on the air —
[Larry King] I’ve never put my name on a product until Sleep like a King. Omega xl. Call and get millionaire success habits. Works for me, it will work for you.
Two or three payments.
Here comes Larry.
I just swallow them without water.
Everybody should be using breath gems.
My romantic life. Let’s just say, the king is bac back.
* * *
John: Moving on. Our main story tonight concerns jury duty, a summons for which is one of the things you least want to find in the mail, aside from maybe a bill or a human toe. Please — a pinkie? Call me when you’re serious enough to send a middle piggie. Then maybe we’ll talk business.
Complaining about jury duty has long been a beloved american pastime. Just watch this caller to a ’90s local TV show delight the host with his whining.
They put us down in this holding pen, they call it the jury assembly room.
The j-a-r, the jar, they stick you in this jar, with, like, 300 other people for a whole week.
And I figure it’s like being in jail, only jail’s a whole lot better, because jail’s a lot cleaner and has much better lighting.
And we have to pay for our own food, and we don’t get to go outside, we don’t get free HBO, we don’t get to talk as much, we don’t get healthcare, and we don’t get conjugal visits.
You don’t get any of that stuff?
We don’t get any of that.
John: Now, he’s actually right. You don’t get conjugal visits while waiting to be called at jury duty. Although judging from that call, “being at jury duty” isn’t that caller’s primary obstacle in that department. As for not getting HBO, I don’t know what he’s complaining about there. They don’t even give me free HBO and I’m actively ruining it.
Now, that man, Greg, was a regular caller to that show. And I know that because we got curious about him after watching that clip, and it turns out, he’s a lot. For example, Greg has a website where you can find classic “gregisms” like “environmentalism is evil,” or “the baptists are the pin in the homo grenade.” Incidentally, “gregisms” isn’t a even term I made up, it’s an actual section of his website. We could honestly spend the rest of this show on Greg, but sadly, we do have to move on. Because the important thing about jury duty is — you know what? Just one more thing about Greg. He’s been tweeting “it’s almost time to have a great #weekend everyone! Who’s with me?” Every Friday for the last very many Fridays, and read the room, Greg. No one has great #weekends anymore. We’re all sitting at home watching the days blur together in a miserable #timesoup.
But while it might sound cliche, serving on a jury really is an essential civic duty. The right to a trial by an impartial jury of your peers is enshrined in the sixth amendment of the constitution. But the truth is, while “your peers” are supposed be chosen from a fair cross-section of society, people of color are routinely excluded. According to a study of 14 federal district courts, underrepresentation of the Latino and African American populations is “ubiquitous,” which is a problem with huge implications for juries. This social psychologist staged mock cases where some juries were all white and others were racially diverse and found the diverse ones operated more fairly and deliberated more comprehensively.
In this study, they — they raised more facts from the trial, they discuss a broader range of information, they discuss the information more accurately, actually, in discussing the facts of the case. They’re more willing to have uncomfortable conversations about controversial issues like those involving race and racial profiling.
John: Yeah, it turns out juries are sort of like presidents of the spokane, Washington, chapter of the NAACP. When they’re entirely white, things tend to go south fast. And this is reflected in the real world. Researchers who examined felony trials in Florida found that juries formed from all-white pools convict black defendants a full 16 percentage points more often than they do white defendants. But that gap in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the pool includes at least one black member. And that’s one of those facts that you probably assumed was true, even though you wish it wasn’t. Like the fact that dogs don’t really enjoy music or that Sean Penn’s new wife is a year younger than his daughter. So tonight, let’s take a look at why juries are so often unrepresentative and what we can do about it. And the whole process starts with what’s called a “jury wheel” — a pool of potential jurors in a community. It used to be an actual wheel, and for many years, black people were explicitly excluded from them. And even after the civil rights act of 1875 said you couldn’t discriminate against jurors based on race, many officials would still find ways to remove them, like by printing their names on different color paper so they could be avoided during the supposedly random drawings. And while thankfully that doesn’t happen anymore, our current system has many flaws that can end up having a similar result. For instance, nowadays, jury wheels are often computerized lists gathered from voter registration and driver’s license records. But there’s a big problem there, as this public defender in New Orleans explains:
Not everybody’s registered to vote and not everybody owns a car and, you know, has a driver’s license. The problem is when we use voter registration or DMV records, we’re — we’re probably excluding around 35% of New Orleanians.
John: right. 35% Of people are excluded there. And being registered to vote and owning a car doesn’t affect whether you’re qualified to serve on a jury. It just affects how much money you probably spend on bumper stickers. Bumper stickers: think of them as traffic twitter. That’s not a compliment. And the exclusions don’t stop there. Most states ban people with felony convictions, and with juror pay being incredibly low, lower-income people can be unable to afford to take part, both of which disproportionately exclude people of color. So inherently, the system is already biased. And that’s before you even get into the mistakes jury summoning systems can make — which, to be fair, can sometimes be pretty fun.
I got jerry duty. I said, “what’s jerry duty?” Summoned for jerry — jury service. If you’re picked, then you go up to the judge and then you say if they’re guilty or not guilty.
John: Yeah! Jacob got jerry duty. And while I can’t believe he found Casey Anthony not guilty, that’s what he and his jerry decided, and we just need to live with that. But some errors are significantly less fun. For instance, in Connecticut, it emerged that their jury selection computer program had accidentally read the “d” in “Hartford” to mean “deceased.” So for nearly three years, it never summoned anyone from Hartford — or, indeed, New Britain, the second-largest city in that district, because their list of names had been accidentally misplaced and was never entered into the program. And the thing is, those two missing cities accounted for 63% of African Americans in the district and 68% of the Hispanic population. Which is horrible. Because if you’re going to forget a town in Connecticut, why not forget Danbury? Because — and this is true — fuck Danbury! From its charming railway museum to its historic Hearthstone Castle, Danbury, Connecticut, can eat my whole ass. I know three things about Danbury: “USA Today” ranked it the second-best city to live in in 2015, it was once the center of the american hat industry, and if you’re from there, you’ve got a standing invite to come get a thrashing from John Oliver. Children included. Fuck you. Now, that Hartford error was made by the government’s own system. But many courts actually contract out their jury selection to companies like these, who promise to run the process cheaper and more efficiently. But private companies can be surprisingly unreliable. Take what happened outside Tulsa, Oklahoma, where a black man was tried by an all-white jury, drawn from a pool of 200 jurors without a single black person in it, after the company handling jury selection accidentally excluded zip codes where 90% of its black residents lived. Then there’s Allen county, Indiana, where this company had a system that was programmed to work through an alphabetical list of townships and stop when it reached 10,000 names. Unfortunately, it turned out 75% of African Americans in that county happened to live in Wayne township, towards the end of the alphabet, meaning they had roughly half the chance of being included on a jury than a truly random system would have produced. So yet again, alphabetization fails us. I’ve said this for years: it’s an ABC-supremacist system that disrespects the better end of the alphabet. Because think about it — z has got all the hotties! Zayn. Zoe. Zendaya. Zac Efron. And of course, zonkeys — half zebra, half donkey, all sex. Now, the extent of that Indiana error only emerged when a man who’d been convicted there sued over the makeup of his jury and his lawyer pointed out to the state supreme court just how lax the design process had been:
It’s not a glitch, not a glitch or computer bug, it’s programming determination. These are codes. These are determinations that the programmer put into the program. It didn’t — some virus come in and make the program go bad. It was bad because he made these decisions, and easily they could have been programmed another way. This was a part-time college student.
John: that’s true. That county’s jury system was originally designed by a college student whose previous job, incidentally, had been working at a head shop. And look, there are plenty of jobs that people with head shop experience are qualified to do. For instance, cleaning bong resin off an IKEA couch cushion or going on a late-night snack run to 7-11 and only getting 40% of what everyone asked for. I’m just not sure “programming a county’s official jury list” is one of those jobs. And whether the errors in these programs were deliberate or just careless, the result is the same. And I’d love to tell you mistakes like these are rare. But the truth is, no one knows how common they are. We only know about the examples that I mentioned so far because of lawsuits that took years. Private vendors often won’t reveal details about their systems, claiming algorithms are a trade secret. And 39 out of 50 states provide no public access to jury pool data. So your court system might have a massive problem, and until a nine-year-old shows up for a murder trial, no one would have any idea. And all this is before jurors even show up for selection, at which point, things get even worse, because prosecutors tend to exclude black jurors, sometimes out of implicit bias, but sometimes out of bias that is pretty fucking explicit. Just watch this Philadelphia d.a. Addressing a roomful of prosecutors in a leaked 1980s training video, explaining which jurors they might want to avoid.
Another factor, I’ll tell you
Another factor, I’ll tell you, if, you know, in selecting blacks, again, you don’t want the real educated ones. Again it’s — this goes across the board of all races. You don’t want smart people. And again — but if you — if you — if you’re sitting down and you’re gonna take blacks, you want older blacks. In my experience, black women, young black women are very bad. There’s an antagonism. I guess maybe because they’re downtrodden on two respects. They got two minorities — they’re women and they’re blacks and so they’re downtrodden on two areas and they somehow want to take it out on somebody, and you don’t want it to be you.
John: Okay, first, any white people who use the word “black” as a noun and not an adjective are pretty suspicious. Throw in that mustache and suddenly it feels like a spike lee period piece. And even putting aside the bigotry there, the only time it’s acceptable to say “we don’t want smart people” is in a training manual for selling LuLaRoe. Because if your business model is “sell 5,000 ugly leggings on Facebook to the people who hated you in high school,” then, yeah, you’re gonna want to weed out the smart people. Now we reached out to that prosecutor, who was upset, saying, “everyone has tried to somehow make this racist,” even though he agreed that “the best jury is biracial.” Something slightly undercut by the fact that, a, you just heard him say “young black women are very bad,” and b, a later review of felony cases that he’d tried found he’d removed black jurors at such a high rate, the odds of it happening by chance were one in a quadrillion. And that guy’s not a one-off. Recent studies in north Carolina and Louisiana found prosecutors striking black jurors at twice and three times the rate of white jurors. And if you’re wondering how they were able to do that, it’s worth knowing, in a trial, lawyers have two ways to remove jurors. The first is a so-called challenge for cause. That’s where they can show a juror can’t be impartial because of some connection to the trial or because they’re somehow unfit to serve. The second is a peremptory challenge, where they can remove a limited number of jurors with no explanation, although since a 1986 supreme court ruling, they can’t exclude jurors purely based on race. It’s something that this hln host explains in a borderline aggressively literal way:
What happens is, the prosecution and defense each have ten jurors each that they can reject for any reason at all or for no reason, unless they believe the other side is playing the race card. And they can then challenge that peremptory challenge.
John: I’ve got a lot of questions, and none of them are about peremptory challenges. First, why use the loaded term “playing the race card” at all? Second, why imply it means “acting in a racist fashion” when it doesn’t? But most importantly, how long did that man walk around with that “race card” in his suit pocket? Was it just for the show, or does he always walk around with it on the off-chance he has to explain peremptory challenges to someone? If so, does he ever go to pay for something, accidentally pull out his race card, and then say, “oops, that’s not my wallet, that’s my race card” to the utter bewilderment of the cashier? Also, how did he get that card? Did he make it himself? ‘Cause that’d be weird, but it might actually be weirder if he’d asked someone else to make it for him. That would mean he’d asked a producer, “hey, can you make me a race card for my segment on jury selection?” To which they probably said, “what do you mean?” And he said, “you know, like a physical card that says ‘race card’ on it.” And then the producer said, “why?” And he said, “because I’m trying to explain lawyers playing the race card when striking jurors.” To which the producer said, “but can’t you just say the phrase ‘playing the race card? Or, y’know, not actually say it at all?'” And he said, “absolutely not.” So a production assistant then spent 20 minutes printing the words “race card” on a red card. Is that how it came to exist? And what happened to it after the show? Did he throw it away? Or did he put it on his desk just in case he ever needed it again? And if so, did someone ever walk by and say, “hey, what the fuck is that?” To which he replied, “oh, that’s just my race card” as if that’s a normal thing to say or to have? And finally, and I know this isn’t the most important thing — why does it say race “card” on it? It’s already a card. Shouldn’t it just say “race?” Because isn’t the thing he’s holding up there technically a “race card” card? And if so, what does the fuck does “that” mean? I have so many questions about this, and I know we don’t have time, but I guess my broader point is, there are two ways for lawyers to strike jurors, and HLN is a deeply weird television network. But while the supreme court said you can’t strike jurors based on race, it turns out, that’s an easy rule to get around. All you have to do is come up with some reason other than race to strike a juror and then do it anyway. Remember that lawyer you saw earlier? He was speaking after that ruling was handed down and was openly instructing prosecutors on how not to get caught.
Let’s say you strike three blacks to start with. First three people. And then it’s like, the defense attorney makes an objection saying that you’re striking blacks. Well, you’re not gonna be able to go back and say, “oh, yeah.” Make something up about why he did it. Write it down right then and there. So sometimes under that line, you may want to ask more questions of those people so it gives you more ammunition to make an articulable reason as to why you’re striking them and not for race.
John: Wow. It’s pretty bizarre to see a government official so flagrantly teaching people how to do something illegal. It’s like if “how to get away with murder” was an educational series where Viola Davis explains how to literally get away with murder. Which she’d absolutely crush, by the way. I would gladly watch multiple seasons of her describing in vivid detail how to dismember a corpse and dissolve the body parts in acid. And, look, to this day, prosecutors use a wide variety of bullshit reasons to strike black jurors, some of which are just flat-out ridiculous, like saying jurors were too young, too old, single, divorced, religious or not religious, lived in a poor part of town, had a hyphenated last name, displayed bad posture, or were sullen, disrespectful, or talkative. In fact, just listen to this public defender describe a juror strike he once saw:
I had a juror, an African American woman, who was actually excluded because she was wearing what’s called a “puffy coat.”
John: Yeah. She was excluded for wearing a puffy coat. A jacket should never be an acceptable reason to exclude someone from a jury. Unless it’s the one that post Malone wore to the american music awards. He looks like he’s supposed to jump out of a cake at a mariachi-themed gender reveal party. And if you want to see the lengths to which prosecutors are willing to go, just look at the multiple murder trials of Curtis Flowers in Mississippi. His case made it all the way to the supreme court, which decided that his prosecutor had repeatedly and blatantly tried to whitewash the jury. And that opinion was written by maybe the last justice you’d expect.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that a white Mississippi prosecutor’s goal was to have an all-white jury decide the fate of an African American man accused of murder, which is unconstitutional. The court’s newest justice said that district attorney Doug Evans waged a “relentless, determined effort to rid the jury of black individuals.” It was Curtis Flowers’ sixth trial for the same quadruple murder. Kavanaugh pointed to a pattern, noting that Evans had removed 41 of the 42 prospective black jurors over the six trials.
John: 41 of 42 jurors! You know you’re doing something wrong when it’s so flagrant even Brett Kavanaugh has a problem with it — a man who’s done exactly two good things in his life: this decision and making it acceptable to spend your entire job interview screaming and crying. And it wasn’t just how often that prosecutor struck black jurors — it’s how blatantly he did it. Because while, on average, he asked the white jurors who were seated one question, he asked the black jurors he struck 29. And how do you ask anyone that many questions about anything? That’s too many, even for a first date who’s desperately trying to keep the conversation going. “Let’s see, I’ve asked about where you grew up, what you do for work, whether you like your job, whether you have any siblings, whether your siblings are older or younger, what you like to do for fun, what kind of music you like… What else is there? Do you like rakes?” And a prospective juror in one of Curtis Flowers’ trials felt pretty clear about why she’d been struck.
They just told us they didn’t need us. I think they might have assumed that because I was black that I was going to agree with that he was innocent just by the color of his skin. But I actually would have listened to the evidence and had an open ear. I actually was looking forward to serving.
John: Look, it is ridiculous to assume that a juror will be biased just because the defendant is the same race. Of course a black person can be impartial when the defendant is black, in the same way that I could be impartial if the defendant was an owl. To suggest otherwise is extremely insulting, not just to myself, but to all owls. And these decisions have consequences. Curtis flowers spent 20 years on death row and is currently out on bail awaiting a potential seventh trial. So taken all together, it’s clear that, from how we decide who serves to how the list is administered through who we let lawyers select, we’re making a mockery of the phrase “a jury of your peers.” Because who, exactly, is the “you” there? The defendant’s peers? Or the prosecutor’s peers? There’s a big difference. And as we’ve seen, the impact of having people in a jury room who can speak to what being black in america is like and how that might affect your relationship with law enforcement can be hugely beneficial. And yes, that might make a prosecutor’s job a bit more difficult, but the role of a court is not to make it fucking easy by having cases heard only by a group of white people — or, to use the proper collective noun for that, “a whole foods.” I’m serious, try it in a sentence. “Look at that gaggle of geese flying over that whole foods of abigails.” So how do we fix this? Well, there are four basic steps we could take. One, broaden jury pool lists so they don’t exclude large sections of the community. Some have suggested using income tax lists, for instance. Two, make that data public so we can see if there were errors in compiling potential jurors. Third, increase juror pay so that people who miss work don’t suffer financial hardship. And finally, reform the process behind peremptory challenges to make it more practically difficult to strike jurors by race. And while, yes, this is a lot of work, it’s worth it, because as we’ve discussed before, every gear in the criminal justice system is unfairly biased against people of color — from policing to bail to the shortage of public defenders to punitive sentencing to incarceration to re-entry from prison. And this is yet another to add to that depressing list. Because right now, too often, our current system would systematically weed out a qualified person who actually wants to serve and leave in someone who aggressively doesn’t because he can’t watch HBO and fuck in the jury box. And now this.
Announcer: and now, Jim Cramer’s fun time quarantine activity makes you sad.
We have seen so many zoom adaptations on our network and I have had to be in zoom brunches, whatever. I’m not telling you to do your banking on zoom. I am telling you to do your boozy brunch. Our now — my boozy brunch paid for next Saturday’s boozy brunch. My zoom brunch.
I you do my boozy brunch. I cannot wait until Sunday, because Sunday is her boozy brunch enabled by zoom.
I was viciously overserved last Sunday, even though I am living alone.
[Echoing] even though I’m living alone]
John: It that’s our show. Thanks so much for watching.